Interesting debate going on on the 6018, I do not have a strong opinion either way I *DO* give some credibility to the following source http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/guide/castle/ Todd Lehman created the Fibblesnork LEGO Guide relatively close to the time frame of the set release (especially now that it's 2011 nearly 20 years on).Throwing out another data point into the mix, I'm being chaotic in a way

It's funny that you mention this-- In my AFOL History Project research, I read through a bunch of Todd's old posts back when he was writing the Fibblesnork guide. Todd was NOT a castle guy by any stretch of the imagination. One snippit of the conversation from early 1997:

Todd Lehman wrote:

Darrell Kienzle wrote:The Black Falcons were never an official subtheme, at least in the catalogs I have.

I think I currently have these minifigs classified as Black Knights -- is that the best categorization for them?

As for 6018, I think it was fully intended to be a Black Knight set, but thanks to the heraldry, I have to go with Black Falcon. If you're going to judge a minifig's affiliation based on the torso/leg combination rather than on what he's carrying, you'd have to take a serious look at many other figures and re-assign them too. One of the better examples being the mounted knight in 6041. He's carrying a Crusader shield and Crusader flag, but he's got a blue torso with black arms-- the staple of Black Falcon attire. In fact, you won't find ANY other Crusader with a blue torso.

It could be that the shield was a mistake, or that it was included in order to use up extra printed shields (note that this was the last set to ever feature the yellow BF shield until the Legend set in 2001). And it was probably thought that it wasn't a big deal to kids-- IE they wouldn't notice, or would just decide something without it really bothering them.

Ultimately, this is my biggest beef with the "classic" factions of the Crusaders, Black Falcons, and Black Knights-- the Black Knights especially. The uniforms were VERY different from figure to figure.

The Black Falcons were actually pretty good-- all their foot-soldiers from 1984-1989 had Black Falcon emblems on the toros, had black arms, black helmets, and black legs. The waists were occasionally red, and they wore either bullet helms or flare helms, but otherwise were nicely consistent. Then in 1990, we have the ambiguous Battle Dragon, and Knight's Stronghold (featuring blue legs on a Black Falcon soldier, and a breastplate torso). And in 1992, we have Black Falcon soldiers with gray legs. But for 6 years, their soldiers were VERY consistent, and easy to identify.

The Crusader soldiers were more varied. They had black, blue, gray, or red legs, black or dark gray helms, and torsos with either cross-axes, lions, or breastplates. The only constant thread was red torsos with blue arms, with ONE exception in 1991 with the 1480 King's Catapult (which honestly was probably a similar "mistake" situation like 6018).

But the Black Knights were the most rag-tag bunch of misfits ever. Their soldiers have NO consistency whatsoever-- torso color, helmet color, arm color, torso design, whatever. They USUALLY wore chain mail, but so did a couple Crusaders, and so did some of the later Royal Knights. There's just no way to tell.

The KNIGHTS of each theme are a little crazier. Again, Black Falcons and Crusader Knights are ~sorta~ consistent, but there are a few exceptions. The Crusaders have that one wacky knight with a blue torso, and the Black Falcons have the one outcast with red arms. But otherwise, they follow SOME rules with torso colors. But the Black Knights again ruin everything-- no consistency whatsoever. They've got every helmet color, every leg color (even white!), every torso color, and every arm color of those available in the castle lineup.

Anyway, the Black Knights are a bunch of losers suffering from an identity crisis. The way you get Black Knights is by putting Crusaders, Black Falcons, Dragon Masters, and Royal Knights in a blender and taking whatever pansy-looking design pops out.

Ah, the Fibblesnork Guide, the mother of all fan-created LEGO set guides throughout the internet. It lead to the Lugnet Set Guide (also Todd's baby), it largley influenced the BrickLink set catalogue, and certainly establish a basis for the Brickpedia set guide. However, we must keep in mind that all these fan-created guides are just that: fan-created. Of course there are always good reasons to have a certain point of view on some sets, but none of them are official. Which means: I don't claim my own point of view to be the "right" one, either. I just think it is reasonable to see it the way I do, while other opinions also have weight.

Anyway, statements like that on Brickpedia: "6018 Battle Dragon is a Black Falcons set released in 1990." are close to nonsense. Because in that time period Lego themselves didn't ever label any range of sets officially "Black Falcons", "Crusaders" or "Black Knights". They all were just "Legoland Castle", featuring Minifigs of one or several factions within each set. So a reasonable statement would be: "6018 Battle Dragon is a Legoland Castle set released in 1990."

Factions, of course, there were undoubtfully. But they did not have official names, at least not up to 1990. The common names we are used to call them by are taken from different sources, as from American set names ("Black Falcon Fortress") or descriptions/identifications in American catalogues ("Crusaders", while the only reference to crusaders in set names is 1877 "Crusader's Cart", which is clearly a Forestmen set.) We see, everything is quite vague. And how much can we rely on catalogues, that we would expect to be the most reliable and official source imaginable? Not much, I tell you!

Again, who would identify the Black Knights with the "Crusaders" just because the catalogue says so?(And no, this is not an own goal. I know I said "Lego didn't label the factions ...". But this catalogue is from 1993, when "Legoland Castle" wasn't in use anymore, because the Minifig World now was called "Lego System".)

Sorry for rambling! I don't aim to proselytise anybody, I just want to draw the attention away from seemingly rock-solid proof, that with closer attention might not be that solid anymore but leaves room for different opinions.

ByeJojo

This is just the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.Winston Churchill

davee123 wrote:Ultimately, this is my biggest beef with the "classic" factions of the Crusaders, Black Falcons, and Black Knights-- the Black Knights especially. The uniforms were VERY different from figure to figure.

The Black Falcons were actually pretty good-- all their foot-soldiers from 1984-1989 had Black Falcon emblems on the toros, had black arms, black helmets, and black legs. The waists were occasionally red, and they wore either bullet helms or flare helms, but otherwise were nicely consistent. Then in 1990, we have the ambiguous Battle Dragon, and Knight's Stronghold (featuring blue legs on a Black Falcon soldier, and a breastplate torso). And in 1992, we have Black Falcon soldiers with gray legs. But for 6 years, their soldiers were VERY consistent, and easy to identify.

The Crusader soldiers were more varied. They had black, blue, gray, or red legs, black or dark gray helms, and torsos with either cross-axes, lions, or breastplates. The only constant thread was red torsos with blue arms, with ONE exception in 1991 with the 1480 King's Catapult (which honestly was probably a similar "mistake" situation like 6018).

But the Black Knights were the most rag-tag bunch of misfits ever. Their soldiers have NO consistency whatsoever-- torso color, helmet color, arm color, torso design, whatever. They USUALLY wore chain mail, but so did a couple Crusaders, and so did some of the later Royal Knights. There's just no way to tell.

The KNIGHTS of each theme are a little crazier. Again, Black Falcons and Crusader Knights are ~sorta~ consistent, but there are a few exceptions. The Crusaders have that one wacky knight with a blue torso, and the Black Falcons have the one outcast with red arms. But otherwise, they follow SOME rules with torso colors. But the Black Knights again ruin everything-- no consistency whatsoever. They've got every helmet color, every leg color (even white!), every torso color, and every arm color of those available in the castle lineup.

Anyway, the Black Knights are a bunch of losers suffering from an identity crisis. The way you get Black Knights is by putting Crusaders, Black Falcons, Dragon Masters, and Royal Knights in a blender and taking whatever pansy-looking design pops out.

DaveE

Your comments on the consistancy of the various factions gave me a thought. Consider the names 'Crusader' and 'Black Knight' in their historical context. While LEGO has avoided the aspect of organized religion in their toys, the Crusades as military campaigns brought together many different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds under a common intent. Therefore a 'Crusader' could have a wider range of armor and heraldry. 'Black Knight' on the other hand is a term for a mercenary soldier. The heraldry they carried would belong to the ruler paying the 'Black Knight', and their armor could come from a number of sources.

The other thing to consider is that LEGO marketing for each country had an influence on the final set name there. So the term "Crusaders" was not universal throughout the world. In addition, this term was added at the tail end of that faction's lifespan. Personally I believe Lion Knights and Black Falcon / Eagle Knights to be more accurate titles.

I also share Dave's assumption that the yellow falcon shield was just using excess inventory in a set. With the exception of the rare Canadian 6103 Knights pack, the blue and yellow shields appeared in 10 sets each. Printed elements are expensive to produce. Throughout the history of the company, from yoyos being cut in half to make car wheels to the 1990's, TLG tried to use or sell as much of their excess inventory as possible. I believe 6018 to be another example of using stock inventory in a new set.

Frank_Lloyd_Knight wrote:Leftover from the Legends sets that were released in 2001 maybe?

Highly unlikely, I'd say, given that Durmstrang was a 2005 set (postdating the colour-change), and is the one example on [url=http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/3846p45]this page[/i] of the shield in "medium stone" (which is to say "new grey" or "bley"), rather than the many old grey examples, including the re-released Black Falcon's Fortress (the rereleased Guarded Inn had only the yellow-rimmed shield).

It seems more likely to me that either it was more convenient for LEGO to reprint with the existing design, or that it was a bit of a freebie to those with Falcon-nostalgia.

Well to return in our thread, none mentioned that the ships always carry their ID Flag (fraction). So if this was a Black Falcon ship it should carry a Blue or at least a Green or White (the colors they use), but instead it carries a Red flag which is far from their color signs and much closer to Black Knights (although they also use a green-yellow flag at Sea Serpent they still use the dragon patern flag). I always believed that the Black Knights were rulling the seas. Although they didn't have many land war machines (like moving catapults ect) they had very powerful navy.(sorry for my English but it's not my native language)

Here is an explanation that was never brought up in the original conversation...this is a Black Knight spy vessel. They are black knights who are prepared to pose as Crusaders or Black Falcons. They convinced some of the catalog makers that they were Crusaders and the set picture captures them in the middle of a costume change. I think that covers it all, don't you think?